Talk:Slobodan Milošević

Anti-bureaucratic revolution

The edits that R-41 made on the Anti-bureaucratic revolution did not contain a single refecence. They were totally unverifyable so they were deleted. If you want to include sources that say Milosevic engineered the anti-bureaucratic revolution that is fine, but you need to identify your source -- and because this is a matter of controversey you can not simply delete verifyable sources that contradict your opinion. It is a verifyable fact that the NY Times reported that there was "no evidence that he played an organizing role". The way to convince readers that he did in fact play an organizing is not to delete verifyable sources that contradict your opinion, but to find superior sources that support your view and quote them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are NPOV editor which is only interested in references why have you not deleted part of article:"Accusations against Milošević of supporting nationalism....." which is writen without verifyable sources--Rjecina (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything to the "Milosevic's Views" section of the article yet. But you're right that paragraph doesn't have a single reference and absolutely should be deleted because it is original research. The bottom line is that we won't get anywhere making assertions of fact on our own. There are credible sources on both sides of almost every issue, and those sources contradict eachother 180 degrees. All any of us can do is quote the two sides and leave it up to the reader to decide who they believe. With the Anti-bureaucratic revolution you can't say that Milosevic organized it and you can't say that he didn't. What you can do is quote the people who say he did and quote the people who say he didn't, but for any of us to make the claim that he did or he didn't would violate NPOV, and if this is done without references and sources it constitutes original research and must also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your idea is OK but we are not writing articles in this way. Editorial style on wikipedia is different and because of that I am sure that you will be reverted. If are you are interested in sources you need to look my Timeline of Yugoslavian breakup . Must of the sources are NYT because only this newspaper is having free, not paying archive so that everybody can look for confirmation. Please do not try to edit timeline on similar way because I will revert because your editorial style is different of wikipedia editorial style. --Rjecina (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is written needs to meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia: (1) No original research (2) Neutral point of view and (3) Verifiability. Editorial style or not, those rules have to be respected. This article is a particular challenge because there are verifyable sources that contradict eachother on virtually every point. The only way to acheive neutrality is to quote the two sides and let the reader decide who they believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My small gift:"I have to admit that I consider Milosevic to be one of the wisest and brightest politicians not only in Yugoslavia, but in the entire Eastern Europe" (words of Gianni De Michelis Italian minister of foreign affairs [1] ). Like I have been saying earlier I will not edit this article. Bye --Rjecina (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations with Greece

I am very surprised that there is no section titled "Relations with Hellas [Greece]" given that the country and the people were the greatest supporters of the Serbs during the 1990s. Greek-Serbian relations were so strong that Milosevic himself proposed a confederation between Serbia (Yugoslavia) and Greece. Please see (the very well-sourced article) Serbian-Greek_friendship for in-depth information regarding this and other facts. Critias (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Figure

Almost everything about Slobodan Milosevic is a matter of dispute. There are credible people and sources on both sides of virtually every issue. We need to be careful not to make assertions of fact in this article unless there is concensus that it is a fact.

There are competing political agendas surrounding Milosevic's legacy. Some people have an interest in demonizing him and others have an interest in canonizing him. Both sides, unfortunately, seem to have their own set of "facts" which are 180 degrees opposite of one another and both sides flatly accuse the other side of lying.

The only way we're going to get through this is by quoting both sides and doing our best to identify whether the source is pro-Milosevic or anti-Milosevic.

To the pro-Milosevic faction, a statement or a finding issued by the Serbian government can be treated as a fact. To the anti-Milosevic faction, a finding issued by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal can be treated as a fact.

Normally statements by governments and courts can be treated as facts, but not in this case. The anti-Milosevic faction will dispute statements and findings by the Serbian government on the grounds that they were "manipulated by Milosevic". The pro-Milosevic faction will dispute the findings of the Tribunal on the grounds that "the Tribunal has no legal authority to make findings of fact". The Tribunal's legality and the Serbian Government's neutrality are matters of dispute.

When writing the article the best course is to say, "The Tribunal says, 'Milosevic did X', but The Serbian Government says 'Milosevic did Y'." The source should always be identified, and identified as pro or anti Milosevic whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So was the United Nations pro-Milosevic or anti-Milosevic? - anon

The UN enforced an embargo against his government, issued a war crimes indictment against him, arrested him and put him in jail. Obviously the UN was anti-Milosevic. That doesn't make them wrong, but the UN is clearly an anti-Milosevic source of information, which will likely tend to make statements justifying their actions against him and his government. The Wiesenthal Center is an anti-Nazi organization, but that doesn't the things they say about the Nazis are wrong. Likewise, a pro-Milosevic source can't be seen as wrong just because they support him.

Neutrality in this article is a particular challenge because everybody has opinions on the man. He is either seen as a butcher who started four wars, or a scapegoat who has been wrongfully blamed for the billigerent acts or others.

The only way to do this article right is to keep our personal views out of it and do our best to quote credible sources on both sides. That way it is up to the reader to decide who to believe.

Original Research

It seems to me that there is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the Yugoslav Wars section is 12 paragraphs long and contains only one citation. A great deal of this article needs to be re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the material I deleted today except that none of it is verifyable. There was not a single citation or reference note in any of it. There are allegations of backroom deals (i.e. that the SFRY presidency supported the 1989 amendments to the Serbian constitution so that Serbia would support Ante Markovic's election as Premere). If this kind of thing is going to be alleged, then we need to know who is saying it and they need to be attributed. As far as I know Markovic was already the Premere when the amendments were adopted so I can't see how that would even be possible -- but I digress, there needs to be citation and attribution. If something is in the article that can not be verified it needs to be deleted until there is some documentation to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation for milosevic illegal tribunal icty

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020214IT.htm

Page 269

"I

7 consider that it is an illegal tribunal, and I have already stated that." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.171 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010703IA.htm Initial Appearance:

3 THE ACCUSED: I consider this Tribunal a false Tribunal and the

4 indictment a false indictment. It is illegal being not appointed by the

5 UN General Assembly, so I have no need to appoint counsel to illegal

6 organ.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/spch-icty.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.171 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

Both Encyclopedia Britannica (a pretty authoritative and researched source) and CNN report Milošević's as August 29, not August 20, as previously noted in the article.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9001502/Slobodan-Milosevic
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/profiles/milosevic/frameset.exclude.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/11/milosovic.obit/index.html
Does someone have concrete proof of his precise birthday? Poldy Bloom (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He was definitely born on the 20th of August. The SPS published his biography in 1991 and listed his birthday as the 20th of August, and the indictment at the Hague listed his birthday as August 20th. http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-2ai011029e.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath Section

The statment that Milosevic is cleared of Genocide and criminal activities because the ICJ ruled that Serbia only failed to prevent the Genocide commited by the Bosnian Serbs is false. A person(individual) is not the same as a state.If the state is cleared of involvment in Genocide that doesn't mean the president was. ICTY found Slobodan Milosevic guilty of a joint criminal enterprise in the case ICTY vs Milan Martic (Serbian leader in Croatia). So this statement in the Aftermath section is an attempt of cheap propaganda to mislead an impartial and uninformed reader.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trial section

The whole trial section is written in a apologetic way.Rather then focusing on the facts and the core of the trial,some editors want to confuse people and white-wash attrocities,genocide and massacres. Carla Del Ponte,The chief prossecutor of the ICTY said that ALL 66 ACCOUNTS of GENOCIDE were supported by evidence. So some Serb apologis found few phrases that can be taken out of context(something they usualy do) and put that in the spot-lite instead the evidence and witness accounts. Strange isn't it?

First of all ,where the F are the refferences(NPOV) that describe the trial as contraversial. After Milosevic's death and his escape from justice,Serb nationalists try to white-wash everything he did simply because he died 40 hours before the end of the trial and was not convicted.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Downfall Section

This section appears to be pro Mr. Milosevic. It presents Mr. Milosevic as an innocent taken down by conspiracy and illegal coup with no references.

Unfortunatly that's how 60% of the Serbian population view the situation. It's all "a big conspiracy" against Serbs and Milosevic is "innocent".Sooner or later they will have to confront their past.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the articel needs to be rewritten to have an NPOV, something sorely lacking right now. Does somebody want to flag it? 4.178.69.21 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It may not be entirely NPOV, but I think that it is trying very hard to be. For instance, the section on his role in the Yugoslav wars is actually annoying in its "his critics say... but his supporters say..." My point being, flagging it as POV is more likely to escalate friction than not. On the other hand, as someone mentioned earlier, he will probably always be a controversial figure, and perhaps readers need to be informed of this from the outset. --Leviel (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wiki is STINKING like hell with so unbearably subjective writing for articles of political importance, that it has become perfectly USELESS to expect anything objective here. Maybe, the NATO bootlickers are in no small numbers out here! WIKI goes down the shit hole flushed!! Sad indeed.

---

Wikipedia: one of the few places in the Universe where the NATO bombing of Serbia is considered “a worse war crime” than the Srebrenica Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.86.134 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

His role in the Yugoslav wars section

Seems to be just a bunch of people's opinions and not many facts 72.140.80.212 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Milosevic supporters are not interrested in facts.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

neither others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.238.246 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Miloshevich

A recent addition says that the name is sometimes transliterated Miloshevich. No doubt this statement is literally true; since this is probably as close to a phonetic rendering as you can get in English, it seems almost certain that someone has written it that way.

However I personally have not come across it. I would suggest that, unless this spelling has some serious currency in respected writing, it's probably not advisable to mention it so prominently. Can someone give examples of authors or publications that spell it this way? --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Supporters Section

I made an edit to the section titled "Milosevic's role according to his supporters". The section begins with a list of quotations from different people whom the author claims to be supporters of Slobodan Milosevic. However, one of these quotations was from former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. The inclusion of this quote is wrong for several reasons. First, the quote that was used wasn't even in support of Milosevic at all. Second, James Baker is not and never was a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic; therefore, he should not be used as a supporter of Milosevic. This misleads the reader and unfairly bloats the reputation of Slobodan Milosevic.

204.111.42.226 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)CassiarMemekio

Yes, I agree. If you don't believe that he was guilty of what he was accused of doing, that makes you his supporter? I don't support Rush Limbaugh, but if he were accused of murder or something and the accusers couldn't but should have been able to come up with some proof or something, I wouldn't believe he was guilty, but that wouldn't make me his "supporter". Is my point coming across? The word "supporter" is misleading in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

amazing

There isn't any real proof that he was guilty? No memo saying: "cleanse them from Serbia", no smoking gun?? If there is, why is it not in this article? This is bizzare, what accounts for this? Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No memo saying cleanse from Serbia???? Were you blind back in the 1990s??? Did you not watch the news in the democratic west?? The man murdered millions of non-Serbs through campaigns of terror, ethnic cleansing and genocide over 10 years and about 10 wars every one of which he lost. Human Rights Believer (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, where is this proof? All I remember from the 1990s was the accusation, not the proof. I know he fought wars to keep Yugoslavia together, but there is no proof in the article that he ordered the genocide or ethnic cleansing of anything. I know that there were massacres on all sides, but I also know that there were massacres committed by my countrymen in different cases. That doesn't mean my country (USA) ordered them. Proven that massacres happened is not the same as proving that the president ordered them, called for them, or what not. What you've provided would satisfy me if you could prove he said it. As it is, all we have is your sayso. Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Famous Kosova speech

I don't speak Serbian nor do I wish to. But I know the jist of his famous 1986 speech just before he invaded Kosova with his Serb (not Yugoslav) militia and started the Yugoslav Wars in the hope of changing Yugoslavia into Greater Serbia. I added it to the intro so that it is clear to everyone the way his mind worked. Human Rights Believer (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Milosevic could not "invade" Kosovo because Kosovo was an autonmous province of Serbia (the same way that Obama could not 'invade" Texas shoudl Texas decide to proclaim independence. I am pretty sure that you speak -or at least understand Serbian- as you are albanian (only albanians refer to Kosovo i Metohija as "Kosova".

I will let that stand a few days, but you're going to have to either cite it or it'll be removed. Where did this quote come from? Is it a reliable source? How can you be so sure it's accurate? Besides, it's not worked into the article. just stuck out at the beginning. Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, for the reasons Chrisrus gave. If you can find a reliable source for it, and work it into an appropriate place in the article, without giving it too much weight, go ahead. Given the quality of your other edits, though, I'm not holding my breath. -- Zsero (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

quotes by Milosevic

Here is a list of quotes by Milosevic that will contradict much of what is written currently on this page about him. No doubt Milosevic in his speeches may be trying to present his leadership in the most favorable light. However those that criticize Milosevic often claim he whipped up the Serbs into a nationalist frenzy by inciting hatred in his speeches. If you read these quotes by him, I ask you how in the world he was able to do that as anyone can see he stresses equality among nationalities and ethnic tolerance.

http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/wise-words-of-slobodan-milosevic.html

Yugo91aesop (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this very convincing. How would you have the article changed? I think the first paragraph is biased against the evidence in that it says upfront that he was removed from office for corruption, and then later, further down, shows that he was innocent of corruption (if you believe in innocent until proven guilty) because of a lack of "hard" evidence, with a citation that presents no evidence at all, "hard" or otherwise.

We could also re-write sections that might say that he was accused or is believed to have ordered or been complicit in genocide, a fact that needs to be in the article, but emphasize that we have no citation of any evidence that he was guilty. If you believe in innocent until proven guilty not just in a court of law, but in any evidence-based way, the article should never imply any guilt on the part of Milosevic without citation of evidence. Unless someone can cite some evidence to refute such evidence as Yugo91aesop has presented today, which shows that Milo was against ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and genocide, we can't imply that there is any.

Anyone who feels shock reading these words, who and shares the common belief that he was guilty should use any emotion he or she is feeling to motivate him or her to go find any evidence that he was guilty of encouraging, ordering, or even standing by and not trying to stop any ethnic cleansing or massacring of peoples, and then add that to the article. The evidence we have so far shows not only no proof that he did these things, but instead shows that he was against them and tried to stop them. I know it's weird and begs the question why everyone believes the opposite, and that you or I don't know what to do with that information as it causes a lot of cognitive dissonance and strange emotions with regard to the significance of this fact; what therefore you or I might do with this information, but those cannot be considerations. Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a blog. It is not a reliable source, and should not be used in any way to edit the article. Please use reliable sources that discuss Milosevic's views and actions, not an unreliable quotefarm. Fences&Windows 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. I didn't mean that this was a source for the article. These quotes, according to the article, are collected in his Milosevic's book. Original sources may be found. All I meant to say was that I find this convincing, personally. There are no quotes at all saying words to the effect of "We must cleanse Greater Serbia of non-Serbs" and we do have quotes of him saying words to the effect of "All ethnicities should live together in Yugoslavia in peace." If you've got something, we'd all like to see it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I used this blog's quotes to find the following, seeming reliable source. I Googled "By+the+force+of+social+circumstances+this+great+600th+anniversary+of+the+Battle+of+Kosovo", a quote I navigated to, supposedly the big speech at which Milosevic called for Serbs to commit genocide. The GoogleBooks text I chose was The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999, By Heike Krieger, which, according to the overview, provides the material relating to Kosovo's pre-1999 situation. Here's a famous quote from it, quoted in many places on the web:

"Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is an advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly developed ones, has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully....Socialism in particular, being a progressive and just democratic society, should not allow people to be divided in the national and religious respect....Yugoslavia is a multinational community and can only survive under conditions of full equality for all nations that live within it..."

And on and on it goes. Now, let's have a quote from such a source that says "All Serbs should go out and kill non-Serbs" or something. Surely he must have said such a thing, but there is nothing I can find. Maybe I just don't have the research skills, but I can't find anything.

So I think, well maybe he secretly believed in ethnic clensing and genocide and such but quietly ordered it. Well, where's the document? The chief justice from the Hague trials says on camera that such a thing was never found and likely never will.

So I think, maybe he ordered it without a document, or destroyed all the documents. Is there any reliable testimony that witnessed such an act? This maybe you can find. It depends on what you mean by "reliable testimony".

I'm not a Milosavic "supporter". I'm just some guy on the other side of the world who's trying to give the man the benefit of a doubt, to maintain innocent those who have not been proven guilty if not in the court of law at least in terms of evidence.

Well, we can't just go with what Milosevic says. If reliable sources mention his statements, we can use them, but his own book is really a self-published source. We need to be careful about using what people say about themselves, their beliefs and their actions. Fences&Windows 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999, is by By Heike Krieger, not Milosevic. It is a reliable source or documents from the era on this subject. Second, he was accused of murder by calling for it, but using words to urge his supporters to kill non-Serbs. So we look to this book to see what he actually said to those people on that day when he was supposed to have called for mass murder. Instead, we find that he had said things words to the effect of "we all are Yugoslavs and Ethnicity doesn't matter, we should all live in peace, ethnic animosity is bad". Look at it here: http://books.google.com/books?id=-OhPTJn8ZWoC&pg=PP1&dq=%27%27The+Kosovo+conflict+and+international+law:+an+analytical+documentation+1974-1999%27%27#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Go to page 10. Is this evidence that he called for genocide, or actually the opposite, that he called for NO genocide? You be the judge. Where is the evidence that Milosevic is guilty? This speech was supposed to have been evidence that he was guilty of calling for genocide. It was depicted as such by his accusers. Your response was not focused on what I was saying.

Doesn't the article already go into great depth on this topic? What edits are you proposing? Fences&Windows 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should organize a section of prominant people who have offered accusations that he was guilty or not, without any proof. Then we should organize sections of evidence that he was guilty and evidence that he was not.

As it is, you have copious accuations of guilt and claims of innocence mixed in with some evidence. The reader would be best served if it were clearly organized in such a way that they can decide for themselves if the common belief that he was guilty is true or not. Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Self-published or not, the book a reliable source for the quotes. Primary sources are valid for the fact that they say something; secondary sources are only required for analysis of what the primary source means. -- Zsero (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

By "the book", are you talking about "The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999 By Heike Krieger? Chrisrus (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a secondary source, so no problem at all. I'm responding to the claim (by Fences and Windows) that a book by Milosevic himself, if self-published, would be invalid as a source. 'Tain't so. -- Zsero (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

quotes by milosevic 2

Sorry to create a new section but it wont let me edit the previous one. We could simply add a section to the article called "Quotes by Milosevic" This I think will allow readers to judge for themselves what kind of man Milosevic really was. If this angers those that are in the "anti-Milosevic crew" who believe he really wanted a greater serbia, let them by all means find those quotes that support their view and add it themselves. I'm pretty new to wikipedia and havn't edited any articles yet, but if someone can find reliable sources to back up these quotes http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/wise-words-of-slobodan-milosevic.html then I think some of them should be added to the article. I've emailed the writer of the blog to provide sources but he has not responded yet Yugo91aesop (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm like-minded. Thanks for trying and good luck with that. Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to list quotes of Milosevic. Try Wikiquote. If you can find sources that indicate that certain quotes of his are important, then it might be suitable to include a limited number of quotations in the article. See an essay, WP:QUOTE. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should be here to improve the article, not Milosevic's reputation. Fences&Windows 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is not to list quotes of Milosevic. He is accused of having called for genocide. This is one of the most important things about him, as the article shows, he is widely believed to have called for genocide, and was arrested and tried for genocide or ethnic cleansing. He is not accused of actually taking a gun and carrying it out himself, he is accused of ording it or calling for it or standing up in front of crowds and agitating for it. In sum, he was accused of genocide by saying certain things to certain people, such as "go out and ethnically cleanse" or some such. We aren't just collecting quotes a la wikiquote. We are looking for evidence to support (or not) the accusations which the article is rife with. So we are trying to find documents where he ordered genocide or speeches where he called for genocide or people who testified that he told them to commit genocide, but all we're coming up with are speeches where he calls for people NOT to commit genocide. We are just looking for the facts and comparing them to the common wisdom. This is not soapboxing, this is just trying to get past the listing all the quotes listed in the article or prominent people that accuse him of something without providing any evidence and find some evidence to either back them up or not, let the chips fall where they may, no agenda or "soapboxing". What's wrong with that? Chrisrus (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong approach to editing. You need to rely entirely on what reliable sources say about Milosevic. If the reliable sources have all got it 'wrong', that's tough. If there are reliable sources that discuss the issue of Milosevic's speeches and beliefs that aren't already in the article, great, let's include them. If not, personal analysis of his words and writings would be original research. Fences&Windows 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's talking about not using only what reliable sources say about Milosevic? As to whether they've got it wrong or right, I say list'm all if they're notable. But separate the notable accusations from the evidence as distinguished from mere accusations. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget that direct quotes from Milosevic are reliable sources, and if they give a different picture than what hostile sources say then they should be included, lest we paint a false picture by picking and choosing sources. -- Zsero (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you select the quotes to use? Just the ones that put Milosevic in a good light, like those the 'Yugoslavia Truth' blog presents? You can't just use quotes absent any analysis. An example of the issue of using Milosevic's quotes is nicely illustrated by a Time magazine article from 1995:[2]. It juxtaposes two quotes from 1991 and 1995 to demonstrate the change in Milosevic's approach. "We believe that Serbs have the legitimate right to live in one country. If we must fight, then, by God, we will fight" is nationalist, uncompromising, belligerent. In contrast, "Why think about national states and ethnic purity at the end of the 20th century? The main rule of the contemporary world is integration. Nationalism isolates people. It is crippling" is reasonable, conciliatory, internationalist. Fences&Windows 14:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those two quotes don't contradict each other at all. So they're not good examples of your point. But yes, the selection of quotes needs judgment, just as the selection of secondary or tertiary sources to quote does. One could selectively quote any number of respectable scholarly works to produce the effect one wanted, and one can do the same with quotes from the horse's mouth; but one shouldn't. The same good judgment that must be used with secondary and tertiary sources can just as easily be used with primary ones. The only way in which we are restricted from using primary sources is that we can't use them for more than they actually say — and exactly the same is true with secondary and tertiary sources. -- Zsero (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that quote is very interesting, more toward what I was thinking of to go in the "guilty" evidence column. Do you have the context for it? I want to see what when he said it, what he was talking about; what he meant by “one country”, etc. Chrisrus (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, you have convinced me about the primary, secondary sources, etc. I'm not so sure I agree with you completely about the "by God, we will fight" comment just yet. Do you know what he was talking about? Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? What was the 1990s Balkan war about? It was about Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declaring independence over the protests of their Serb minorities, and those minorities' subsequent attempt to declare their own independence in the areas in which they were majorities, presumably with a view to then get those areas annexed to Serbia (much as Anglos in Texas rebelled against Mexican rule, and eventually joined Texas to the USA). The two quotes are absolutely consistent with each other; together they say that Serbs want to live in a Serb-dominated country, and are willing to fight for that cause, but that that country should welcome any non-Serb minorities who choose to live there peacefully. -- Zsero (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"We believe that Serbs have the legitimate right to live in one country. If we must fight, then, by God, we will fight"

Please help Research this quote. So far, I've Googled up four sites that cite it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+believe+that+Serbs+have+the+legitimate+right+to+live+in+one+country.+If+we+must+fight%2C+then%2C+by+God%2C+we+will+fight%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS_en Chrisrus (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That quote I believe was said in response to the Croatian and Slovenian declarations of independence in June, although I'm not completely sure. I will try to find the exact date. Here however is an interview by him with Sky Television dated August 7th 1991 which means it was 2 months after the declarations of independence. http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/milosevic080791.htm I suggest reading the whole thing, as I think he clears up, or tries to make clear how he views the conflict in Croatia. In particular he says

'[Van Linden] After the events of the last month, would you accept Croatia's independence?

[Milosevic] Well, this question needs to be explained better. We are living in the country of Yugoslavia. It is one country, one land. It is the only internationally recognised subject. We are not opposing the Croatian people's right to self-determination. If they want to establish their own independent, national state, there is no reason for us to oppose that. However, if they want to leave Yugoslavia, they cannot take a section of the Serbian people with them. This right to self- determination belongs to the Serbian people as well. I think that this is very logical.

We are living in this country. All people in Yugoslavia have equal rights to self-determination. The Serbian people do not want to leave Yugoslavia. They want to remain in Yugoslavia, to live together with all people who want to live in Yugoslavia and with Serbs, and that is all. I think that this is the only democratic and peaceful approach, respecting the will of the people. Let us check their will through a referendum and capacity to act in conformity with the will they express. Nothing will happen. There will be no conflicts, confrontations, bloodshed, or anything else, if no one wishes to hurt the interest of the other side.

He obviously makes clear that the right for Serbs to live in one state means them living IN YUGOSLAVIA and not in some greater Serbian state. Again, we cannot take Milosevic simply at his word, however I believe that we can learn a great deal about him by studying what he himself said.

Here is also a list of interviews and speeches by him which I think can assist. Most of the speeches are in Serbian however.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/speech-interview.htm Yugo91aesop (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'll reply more later, but please, what if you I may/you can, how do you say "in one country" in the Serbian language? Outside of context, how many legit translation can there be? "all together the same without other group", "in a country, i.e.: in one, but any country", etc.? Chrisrus (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)